I'm actually going to pass along an anti-gun ad (even though I hate to give it page views). Well, perhaps you might consider it "gun safety" rather than anti-gun. That argument could be made, but I think it's on shaky ground. It feels anti-gun to me.
Anyway, here it is:
Yes, kids who are kept ignorant will play with anything they find. Now. once again, I suggest education is the key.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the boys had been educated about what the "toys" were, and how to properly use them, they wouldn't have touched them with a ten-foot pole.
A locked-up gun is useless for defense. Of course, that's what the anti-liberty bigots want. It's their idea of "safety". Safety for whom?
.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Saturday, March 14, 2015
When should you hit a woman?
...anytime you need to hit anyone in self defense, that's when. To imagine that someone gets a pass for aggression due to the type of genitalia they have is inconsistent and hurts everyone- attacker and victim, alike.
You are never obligated to defend yourself with violence, but on the other hand, you are also never obligated to sit back and take it. Not from anyone, ever.
I have never bought into this "never hit a woman" nonsense. Yet, I have refrained from hitting a woman a couple of times it was justified. Simply because I knew "the law" wouldn't have been on my side due to a total lack of witnesses. I'm not proud of that fact. There is nothing noble about allowing yourself to be hit while doing nothing to defend yourself.
When my second marriage was getting really bad, my (newly psychotic) wife would occasionally slap me and dare me to do something about it. I did- I got away. But I would have been right to have punched her, and am somewhat ashamed that I didn't. You and I both know I would have been arrested for defending myself, since her aggression happened in the privacy of our home. It doesn't matter, though. As the aggressor she deserved to be defended against with whatever amount of violence it took to stop the attack.
Refusing to hit her could also be seen as a form of self defense- defense against insane "laws" and bigotry. Choosing one violation to avoid a potentially worse one.
So, no, I have never hit a woman, but I will never condemn someone who hits an aggressor of any sex. Sometimes it is simply the right thing to do. If that offends you, well, suck it up, Buttercup.
You are never obligated to defend yourself with violence, but on the other hand, you are also never obligated to sit back and take it. Not from anyone, ever.
I have never bought into this "never hit a woman" nonsense. Yet, I have refrained from hitting a woman a couple of times it was justified. Simply because I knew "the law" wouldn't have been on my side due to a total lack of witnesses. I'm not proud of that fact. There is nothing noble about allowing yourself to be hit while doing nothing to defend yourself.
When my second marriage was getting really bad, my (newly psychotic) wife would occasionally slap me and dare me to do something about it. I did- I got away. But I would have been right to have punched her, and am somewhat ashamed that I didn't. You and I both know I would have been arrested for defending myself, since her aggression happened in the privacy of our home. It doesn't matter, though. As the aggressor she deserved to be defended against with whatever amount of violence it took to stop the attack.
Refusing to hit her could also be seen as a form of self defense- defense against insane "laws" and bigotry. Choosing one violation to avoid a potentially worse one.
So, no, I have never hit a woman, but I will never condemn someone who hits an aggressor of any sex. Sometimes it is simply the right thing to do. If that offends you, well, suck it up, Buttercup.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Circumcision by "law"
I'm sure you've seen the case in Florida where the woman is being ordered by the State to have her 4 year-old son circumcised like she had previously agreed to do.
First off, I will say that I support the mother's resistance. I consider circumcision to be genital mutilation- and when medically unnecessary, it is definitely an act of aggression. I consider the State's opinions to be the utterings of an idiot, to be ignored unless a gun is in your face right now, and to be resisted whenever necessary to do the right thing.
But I accidentally got into a Facebook "debate" with a couple of women whose opinions on this matter astounded me.
Here are the basics:
The contract is sacred and must be upheld- no matter what.
It is better to do this to a baby since he won't remember it, but since she didn't do it then, she must do it now, and it is her fault the kid is now being traumatized.
The mom is wrong for informing (and scaring) him of what the dad and State want to do to him.
The mom is a drama queen for not simply complying.
It is hyperbole to call this "genital mutilation", and it can't be compared at all to female genital mutilation.
The "origins" of the procedure matter more than the results.
I see these women as radical statists. Collectivists of the worst kind.
I don't care what contract you have signed. If an act is wrong, enforcing a contract that says you have to do it is wrong.
The baby may not remember the trauma, but it will affect his whole life and his quality of life- one way or the other. And this kid is no longer a baby and his wishes in the matter need to be considered. And, of course he is scared! People want to cut off a part of his body for no real reason other than it is "normal" to do so!
Sure, the dad claims the kid has a medical condition that can be solved by circumcision. You could solve a pimple on a breast with radical mastectomy, too, but that doesn't mean it's the only, or even the best, option. I'd be willing to bet there are less radical ways to fix the problem while leaving the kid intact.
This was one of those times I had a hard time being nice. I wanted to scream at these women for being brutal child abuse enablers. I consider them pure evil of the sort that empowers the State and tramples liberty. What you do out of ignorance is one thing- what you continue to advocate after being educated is quite another.
.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
If a thug lends a hand
If I were in serious trouble would I accept help from a known bad guy? You bet I would.
So what if I suspect (or know) that the person pulling me out of a burning car is a MS-13 thug? At that moment my need is such that I'm not going to complain no matter who offers a hand.
Or, if my daughter were kidnapped and the local mafia (if there were such a thing hereabouts) found her and brought her back to me, I wouldn't say "No, take her back to the kidnappers because I don't like what you do."
And it's the same if a cop helps.
No one can be a bad guy all the time- at least not in every act they perform. They'd never survive no matter what connections they had.
Accepting help isn't the same as endorsing or condoning the other things a person does. You can hate the fact that your rescuer is a hired hitman while still being grateful to him- individually- for helping you at that moment.
If you feel you can afford to slap away a helping hand in a moment of crisis, you are a better person than I.
Yeah, pretty much the same theme as "If a cop saves a life...", but still a little different.
.
So what if I suspect (or know) that the person pulling me out of a burning car is a MS-13 thug? At that moment my need is such that I'm not going to complain no matter who offers a hand.
Or, if my daughter were kidnapped and the local mafia (if there were such a thing hereabouts) found her and brought her back to me, I wouldn't say "No, take her back to the kidnappers because I don't like what you do."
And it's the same if a cop helps.
No one can be a bad guy all the time- at least not in every act they perform. They'd never survive no matter what connections they had.
Accepting help isn't the same as endorsing or condoning the other things a person does. You can hate the fact that your rescuer is a hired hitman while still being grateful to him- individually- for helping you at that moment.
If you feel you can afford to slap away a helping hand in a moment of crisis, you are a better person than I.
-
Yeah, pretty much the same theme as "If a cop saves a life...", but still a little different.
.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Visitors center could be profitable
Visitors center could be profitable
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 6, 2015)
The Texico New Mexico Visitors Center's fate has generated a bit of talk- most of which seems to revolve around trying to convince government to spend confiscated money to re-open it, leaving it in the hands of the very group which fumbled it. Why hand it back to them?
Only the "sunk cost fallacy" sees wisdom in continuing to throw money down a hole when you can stop. The best way to stop, in this case, is to let someone else risk their own money.
I would love to see local individuals take it over and re-open it as a private effort filling the same niche it filled before. Maybe some business owners, or a local investor looking for a project, could get together and pool money to run it. It could be a profitable venture. "Make a profit? From a visitors center?" Instead of burning through money taken out of the economy by coercion, it could be self-sustaining; putting money back into the economy. If you object to people making a profit by providing a service, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea.
Let someone with a plan, and the means to get it running without government handouts, give it a try. Privately run, it would be a net gain, rather than a net drain.
Since the facilities and the land they sit on was bought with "tax" money, it already belongs to the people- as does everything government claims to own. "The people" is not some magical collective- it is every individual whose money has been taken through taxation to finance the facility. Some of those people would undoubtedly do a better job of running it; never again taking money from others against their will for the purpose.
A relative of mine even mentioned what a great RV park it would make, and I think that's a wonderful idea. Without much effort it could easily become the most scenic spot between Texico and Clovis- and it's convenient for all the traffic through the area, too.
Local businesses could pay to have their brochures provided for interested travelers. A variety of tourist trinkets and maps could be sold. A snack bar would be a great addition. It would provide a few jobs and could be a fascinating place to work- as long as the money coming in was all voluntary.
The only real obstacle would be opposition from those calling themselves "the state"- who believe they own it- and those who hate to see anything moved from the government sector to the productive sector. Their objections would be nothing but a case of "sour grapes".
.
The Texico New Mexico Visitors Center's fate has generated a bit of talk- most of which seems to revolve around trying to convince government to spend confiscated money to re-open it, leaving it in the hands of the very group which fumbled it. Why hand it back to them?
Only the "sunk cost fallacy" sees wisdom in continuing to throw money down a hole when you can stop. The best way to stop, in this case, is to let someone else risk their own money.
I would love to see local individuals take it over and re-open it as a private effort filling the same niche it filled before. Maybe some business owners, or a local investor looking for a project, could get together and pool money to run it. It could be a profitable venture. "Make a profit? From a visitors center?" Instead of burning through money taken out of the economy by coercion, it could be self-sustaining; putting money back into the economy. If you object to people making a profit by providing a service, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea.
Let someone with a plan, and the means to get it running without government handouts, give it a try. Privately run, it would be a net gain, rather than a net drain.
Since the facilities and the land they sit on was bought with "tax" money, it already belongs to the people- as does everything government claims to own. "The people" is not some magical collective- it is every individual whose money has been taken through taxation to finance the facility. Some of those people would undoubtedly do a better job of running it; never again taking money from others against their will for the purpose.
A relative of mine even mentioned what a great RV park it would make, and I think that's a wonderful idea. Without much effort it could easily become the most scenic spot between Texico and Clovis- and it's convenient for all the traffic through the area, too.
Local businesses could pay to have their brochures provided for interested travelers. A variety of tourist trinkets and maps could be sold. A snack bar would be a great addition. It would provide a few jobs and could be a fascinating place to work- as long as the money coming in was all voluntary.
The only real obstacle would be opposition from those calling themselves "the state"- who believe they own it- and those who hate to see anything moved from the government sector to the productive sector. Their objections would be nothing but a case of "sour grapes".
.
Skinhead Bob's double standards
Sunday evening I was taking a walk with my daughter. As we were leaving our yard a local skinhead belonging to the Blue Line Gang drove past. He was talking on his cell phone and using his laptop as he drove. His hands were so busy I'm not sure how he was driving.
This is right next to a kinderprison which is posted with signs saying "the use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in school zone". It makes no exception for weekends or after hours, and makes no exceptions for Blue Line Gang thugs. But you and I both know some animals are more equal than others- even while being inferior in just about every way.
OK, so technically Skinhead Bob* wasn't using "a" wireless communication device, since I saw him using at least two, simultaneously. Perhaps that's his excuse.
And, no, I don't really care if the sick tax-junkie is using those devices- as long as he doesn't molest or rob others for doing the same.
What do you think the chances of that might be?
Probably the same as the chances of him letting other drivers "get away with" not quite stopping at the stop sign- exactly like he doesn't do. Which I see him enforce often (as far as I can tell, it's all he does). Double standards and those who live by them, sicken me.
*No, I don't really know the parasitical vermin's name. This one has only been infesting the town for a few months. The last "new cop" was out to make a name for himself and found himself out of a job before too long. How this one will choose to molest us remains to be seen.
.
This is right next to a kinderprison which is posted with signs saying "the use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in school zone". It makes no exception for weekends or after hours, and makes no exceptions for Blue Line Gang thugs. But you and I both know some animals are more equal than others- even while being inferior in just about every way.
OK, so technically Skinhead Bob* wasn't using "a" wireless communication device, since I saw him using at least two, simultaneously. Perhaps that's his excuse.
And, no, I don't really care if the sick tax-junkie is using those devices- as long as he doesn't molest or rob others for doing the same.
What do you think the chances of that might be?
Probably the same as the chances of him letting other drivers "get away with" not quite stopping at the stop sign- exactly like he doesn't do. Which I see him enforce often (as far as I can tell, it's all he does). Double standards and those who live by them, sicken me.
-
*No, I don't really know the parasitical vermin's name. This one has only been infesting the town for a few months. The last "new cop" was out to make a name for himself and found himself out of a job before too long. How this one will choose to molest us remains to be seen.
.
Monday, March 09, 2015
A "Deaddog's switch"- a profitable idea?
You know I'm somewhat enthusiastic about preps. I try not to push the issue, since I don't think that helps- when it matters to you, you'll do it. I wish it mattered to everyone.
Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.
And, it gave me an idea.
He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.
That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!
Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.
Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.
Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.
.
Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.
And, it gave me an idea.
He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.
That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!
Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.
Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.
Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.
.
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Is history fiction?
(Previously posted to Patreon.)
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
Garry Reed's "Selected Salvos 2".
I recently finished reading Garry Reed's latest little collection, "Selected Salvos 2 from the Loose Cannon Libertarian".
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/km4jxqr
Kindle: http://tinyurl.com/okqacn3
Barnes&Noble: http://tinyurl.com/o339l2o
Goodreads: http://tinyurl.com/khvrvox
(And, for a video about the book- YouTube: http://youtu.be/MYFWQlTIYPs)
.
Read it and absorb it
MamaLiberty has written a really great one.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
"Private, for-profit" man cages
"Private, for-profit" prisons are just as bad as their State-run twins. First of all, they are not "private" since they depend utterly on the criminal-creating State for their existence and profits.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Saturday, March 07, 2015
Finally- I find an excuse for government
I'm always saying there's no excuse for government.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Good ISIS?
I admit, I despise ISIS on a couple of different levels. They are religious, and they are a State. They also, because they are a State, use aggression to coerce others. But I am willing to look beyond my prejudices and consider the question more deeply:
Are any ISIS members good people?
I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?
By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.
To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.
I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.
You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.
So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.
Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.
.
Are any ISIS members good people?
I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?
By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.
To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.
I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.
You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.
So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.
Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.
.
Wednesday, March 04, 2015
The logic behind statism
Because poison exists in the world, we must add it to our soup, otherwise we might be poisoned by accident.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
Liberty, literally
I got lectured recently (and not for the first time) by someone who believes the word "liberty" means the opposite of what I mean when I use the word- the negative opposite of what the word should mean.
His definition is the one which means "permission from authority". Such as the military meaning of the word "liberty".
This tendency for enemies of liberty, rights, anarchy and all the positive things in life to assign an opposite, negative meaning to a good word is just like the recent redefinition of the word "literally" to also mean the opposite of "literally"- "figuratively".
Which is why I am pretty careful to constantly harp on what I mean when I use a word. I think it makes misunderstandings less likely, but some people want to misunderstand and argue. There's no stopping them if that's what they want, but they sure look silly.
Of course, this is the same person who believes in his magical incantations, so what do I expect?
.
His definition is the one which means "permission from authority". Such as the military meaning of the word "liberty".
This tendency for enemies of liberty, rights, anarchy and all the positive things in life to assign an opposite, negative meaning to a good word is just like the recent redefinition of the word "literally" to also mean the opposite of "literally"- "figuratively".
Which is why I am pretty careful to constantly harp on what I mean when I use a word. I think it makes misunderstandings less likely, but some people want to misunderstand and argue. There's no stopping them if that's what they want, but they sure look silly.
Of course, this is the same person who believes in his magical incantations, so what do I expect?
.
Monday, March 02, 2015
The Cult of Punishment
A lot of people- even those self-identifying as "mostly libertarian"- are big fans of punishment.
They may prefer private punishment over State, "tax"-funded punishment, but just as rape isn't "better" because you aren't wearing a cop uniform when you commit it, punishment doesn't magically become alright just because you don't call yourself The State.
Many people seem to forget that government isn't what makes aggression wrong; aggression is what makes government wrong. Along with theft.
With most violations, punishment actually helps no one. Restitution can make things right- or as right as humanly possible- and the guilty may feel "punished", but with restitution, there is a quantifiable goal and when the debt is paid, it is over. No so with prison, which costs the victim even more ("tax" money to house and feed the aggressor/thief), therefore victimizing the victim again, as well as everyone else who has better uses for their money than maintaining a human farm.
Punishment feeds a psychological desire to see a person who made someone else suffer, also suffer. As much or more than his victim. As with many psychological desires, this one is not healthy, while still being understandable. I think it is somewhat immature (and I have fallen into the same trap, so any fingers pointed at anyone else are also pointed back at myself). Basically, punishment only makes the fans of punishment feel better.
But, many believe punishment is especially "necessary" in order to either force an aggressor to pay back a debt which can't be paid back, or to ensure a reduction in aggression into the future. After all, there can be no restitution for some things, and "what if" the guilty person attacks again?
Does this sort of punishment actually accomplish what its proponents claim?
Does punishment pay the debt for a rape or murder? If something is truly paid for, then the violation ceases to be. If so, then there is no more reason to feel like a victim, or damaged, once punishment has been exacted and the violation is "paid". Things are either back to how they were before the violation took place, or the victim is satisfied with the outcome. I doubt any victim of rape or murder would make that claim, even if the aggressor were tortured to death, slowly, over the course of months. So punishment fails spectacularly in this instance.
Punishment can never "pay" for a rape or murder.
What about ensuring a reduction in the violations into the future?
Apparently, those who are prone to commit aggression don't worry much about consequences. Or, at least those who don't try to veil their acts with the false legitimacy of government don't worry much about consequences. For one thing, they all seem to believe they'll never be caught; that only happens to "the other guy" who isn't as clever.
The one thing which does seem to alter their behavior is the realization that the pool of potential targets has a high percentage of armed people in it. This is an immediate consequence they can actually visualize and adjust their behavior to deal with. Such as, seeking out places which criminalize self defense and the effective tools with which to carry it out.
So, I am very dubious about the claim that harsh punishment carried out on one aggressor will change the behavior of others in a way that will reduce aggression in the long run. Your best bet is to be prepared to defend yourself and those around you from bad guys.
How about the guy you've caught in the act? (And who somehow survived being caught.)
Sure, if you "execute" a murderer, he won't murder again. Most probably wouldn't have anyway, but let's pretend they would have. Unless they went on to commit 2 or more murders you haven't gained anything, since their death- at a time when they were not currently engaged in aggression (otherwise it isn't an "execution". it is self defense) and were under control (because unless they are under your total control how could you perform your death healing ritual on them?) is one more death than existed before you committed the act. Sure, you could say that his potential future victims were innocent, and he is a murderer, so his death doesn't count for as much. But, again, if he is not currently committing aggression or theft at the time you kill him, he is- at that moment- innocent of anything worthy of death.
Most murders are a "one-off" event. No, that doesn't help the victim, but it also makes it silly to kill the murderer to prevent more murders in the future. The exception is the person who goes on a murder spree- and they are much less likely to survive long enough for punishment to be an issue, unless the pool of targets has been "legally" primed (disarmed) for their convenience.
If you execute someone who wasn't caught in the act, your chance of murdering an innocent person is too great for me to support in any way. And if you use "tax" money to carry out any form of punishment, you are heaping evil on top of evil.
The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Period. You can sort out any details beyond that later.
I don't "believe in" imprisonment, either, but at least this act is subject to restitution of sorts if it is discovered you are accusing the wrong person. A death penalty isn't.
If a person deserves (by your account) to be in a cage, he probably deserves to be killed by his next target. Or by a witness to his next act of theft or aggression. Yes, some will escape to violate again. Nothing will ever prevent that- not even if we are all kept in cages with round-the-clock surveillance. The dangers associated with "too much liberty" are preferable to those associated with too little. If you disagree, you can establish your own parallel "system"- just leave me out of it.
If you believe in punishment, and actually act on that belief, I may judge you to be the bad guy. If you still believe you are right, then my opinion shouldn't matter. Do what you are going to do with a clear conscience. If you find your conscience nagging you, though, perhaps you should examine your premises a little more deeply.
I truly believe a desire to see punishment carried out hurts you as much- or worse- than those you believe you are using it against. I have seen it over and over again. Choose to believe me or not.
.
They may prefer private punishment over State, "tax"-funded punishment, but just as rape isn't "better" because you aren't wearing a cop uniform when you commit it, punishment doesn't magically become alright just because you don't call yourself The State.
Many people seem to forget that government isn't what makes aggression wrong; aggression is what makes government wrong. Along with theft.
With most violations, punishment actually helps no one. Restitution can make things right- or as right as humanly possible- and the guilty may feel "punished", but with restitution, there is a quantifiable goal and when the debt is paid, it is over. No so with prison, which costs the victim even more ("tax" money to house and feed the aggressor/thief), therefore victimizing the victim again, as well as everyone else who has better uses for their money than maintaining a human farm.
Punishment feeds a psychological desire to see a person who made someone else suffer, also suffer. As much or more than his victim. As with many psychological desires, this one is not healthy, while still being understandable. I think it is somewhat immature (and I have fallen into the same trap, so any fingers pointed at anyone else are also pointed back at myself). Basically, punishment only makes the fans of punishment feel better.
But, many believe punishment is especially "necessary" in order to either force an aggressor to pay back a debt which can't be paid back, or to ensure a reduction in aggression into the future. After all, there can be no restitution for some things, and "what if" the guilty person attacks again?
Does this sort of punishment actually accomplish what its proponents claim?
Does punishment pay the debt for a rape or murder? If something is truly paid for, then the violation ceases to be. If so, then there is no more reason to feel like a victim, or damaged, once punishment has been exacted and the violation is "paid". Things are either back to how they were before the violation took place, or the victim is satisfied with the outcome. I doubt any victim of rape or murder would make that claim, even if the aggressor were tortured to death, slowly, over the course of months. So punishment fails spectacularly in this instance.
Punishment can never "pay" for a rape or murder.
What about ensuring a reduction in the violations into the future?
Apparently, those who are prone to commit aggression don't worry much about consequences. Or, at least those who don't try to veil their acts with the false legitimacy of government don't worry much about consequences. For one thing, they all seem to believe they'll never be caught; that only happens to "the other guy" who isn't as clever.
The one thing which does seem to alter their behavior is the realization that the pool of potential targets has a high percentage of armed people in it. This is an immediate consequence they can actually visualize and adjust their behavior to deal with. Such as, seeking out places which criminalize self defense and the effective tools with which to carry it out.
So, I am very dubious about the claim that harsh punishment carried out on one aggressor will change the behavior of others in a way that will reduce aggression in the long run. Your best bet is to be prepared to defend yourself and those around you from bad guys.
How about the guy you've caught in the act? (And who somehow survived being caught.)
Sure, if you "execute" a murderer, he won't murder again. Most probably wouldn't have anyway, but let's pretend they would have. Unless they went on to commit 2 or more murders you haven't gained anything, since their death- at a time when they were not currently engaged in aggression (otherwise it isn't an "execution". it is self defense) and were under control (because unless they are under your total control how could you perform your death healing ritual on them?) is one more death than existed before you committed the act. Sure, you could say that his potential future victims were innocent, and he is a murderer, so his death doesn't count for as much. But, again, if he is not currently committing aggression or theft at the time you kill him, he is- at that moment- innocent of anything worthy of death.
Most murders are a "one-off" event. No, that doesn't help the victim, but it also makes it silly to kill the murderer to prevent more murders in the future. The exception is the person who goes on a murder spree- and they are much less likely to survive long enough for punishment to be an issue, unless the pool of targets has been "legally" primed (disarmed) for their convenience.
If you execute someone who wasn't caught in the act, your chance of murdering an innocent person is too great for me to support in any way. And if you use "tax" money to carry out any form of punishment, you are heaping evil on top of evil.
The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Period. You can sort out any details beyond that later.
I don't "believe in" imprisonment, either, but at least this act is subject to restitution of sorts if it is discovered you are accusing the wrong person. A death penalty isn't.
If a person deserves (by your account) to be in a cage, he probably deserves to be killed by his next target. Or by a witness to his next act of theft or aggression. Yes, some will escape to violate again. Nothing will ever prevent that- not even if we are all kept in cages with round-the-clock surveillance. The dangers associated with "too much liberty" are preferable to those associated with too little. If you disagree, you can establish your own parallel "system"- just leave me out of it.
If you believe in punishment, and actually act on that belief, I may judge you to be the bad guy. If you still believe you are right, then my opinion shouldn't matter. Do what you are going to do with a clear conscience. If you find your conscience nagging you, though, perhaps you should examine your premises a little more deeply.
I truly believe a desire to see punishment carried out hurts you as much- or worse- than those you believe you are using it against. I have seen it over and over again. Choose to believe me or not.
.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
It's that Old White Magic again
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I have said several times that I am not a believer in magical incantations. Those who think they have discovered the obscure things to say to government employees, to get those parasites to slink away in shame, are (I believe) sincere, but deluded.
I shared the link to my recent post, Liberty- I don't, on Facebook and got slammed by one of "those guys". Mostly I pity him. But I really didn't appreciate his attitude.
Don't get me wrong- I think it would be great if there were words you could recite to send govthugs scurrying never to molest you again. From what I've seen, the attempt doesn't usually work too well for those who depend on it.
I really don't know what to say to people who believe this- especially those who get hysterical because I don't buy what they are selling. I wish them luck in pursuing their beliefs, and if it ever starts working, I may change my mind. Until then...
.
I have said several times that I am not a believer in magical incantations. Those who think they have discovered the obscure things to say to government employees, to get those parasites to slink away in shame, are (I believe) sincere, but deluded.
I shared the link to my recent post, Liberty- I don't, on Facebook and got slammed by one of "those guys". Mostly I pity him. But I really didn't appreciate his attitude.
Don't get me wrong- I think it would be great if there were words you could recite to send govthugs scurrying never to molest you again. From what I've seen, the attempt doesn't usually work too well for those who depend on it.
I really don't know what to say to people who believe this- especially those who get hysterical because I don't buy what they are selling. I wish them luck in pursuing their beliefs, and if it ever starts working, I may change my mind. Until then...
.
Liberty- I don't!*
I don't want to tax anyone.
I don't want to criminalize anything.
I don't support any State or government.
I am not "for" any politician.
I don't want anyone punished- especially not by "law".
I give no weight to permits, licenses, papers, or whatever statists believe legitimize things.
I don't believe in the Cult of The State in any way, shape, or form, nor for any reason.
And I have a difficult time understanding those who do.
*A play on "Freedom- I won't" from "And Then There Were None".
.
I don't want to criminalize anything.
I don't support any State or government.
I am not "for" any politician.
I don't want anyone punished- especially not by "law".
I give no weight to permits, licenses, papers, or whatever statists believe legitimize things.
I don't believe in the Cult of The State in any way, shape, or form, nor for any reason.
And I have a difficult time understanding those who do.
-
*A play on "Freedom- I won't" from "And Then There Were None".
.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Governing- always without authority
The biggest problem with "the left" and "the right" is that they just don't understand that government has no authority. They cheer when The State does something they like; they scream and wail when government does something they hate. They never seem to figure out "government" is just bad people with control issues gathering together under one label to do things to you that you'd recognize as evil if someone did them without first calling themselves "government".
Government can't grant amnesty, nor can it require work permits or proof of citizenship.
Government can't make weapon possession wrong, nor can it protect your rights to own and to carry weapons since government is the only real threat to those rights (the employees either choose to be evil and enforce anti-gun "laws", or be neutral and not enforce them).
Government simply has no authority- and if you imagine it does, that's just an illustration of the power of your imagination. Yes, those working as "government" have power- they can kill you, cage you, and destroy your property- but that power is illegitimate and is done without authority.
If you want government to "do something", you are a supporter of big, powerful government, no matter what the "something" you want may be.
Government can't grant amnesty, nor can it require work permits or proof of citizenship.
Government can't make weapon possession wrong, nor can it protect your rights to own and to carry weapons since government is the only real threat to those rights (the employees either choose to be evil and enforce anti-gun "laws", or be neutral and not enforce them).
Government simply has no authority- and if you imagine it does, that's just an illustration of the power of your imagination. Yes, those working as "government" have power- they can kill you, cage you, and destroy your property- but that power is illegitimate and is done without authority.
If you want government to "do something", you are a supporter of big, powerful government, no matter what the "something" you want may be.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)